Published Paper Details:

The study of judicial review in comparative constitutional law is often perplexing. At one level, the theory on judicial review has kept up with global developments, with scholars seeking to answer how judicial review can go beyond its traditionally understood role to address contemporary challenges .At another level, the age-old debate of whether judicial review by unelected judges should exist at all in a constitutional democracy rages on. This paradox is partly attributable to the fact that the study of judicial review has splintered into the study of judicial review of specific issues that arise in a constitution, such as the judicial review of socio-economic rights, judicial review of constitutional amendments, and judicial review of matters relating to federalism and democracy, with little attention to whether and how they all fit together to form a cohesive theory of judicial review. Literally the notion of judicial review means the revision of the decree or sentence of an inferior court by a superior court. Judicial review has a more technical significance in pubic law, particularly in countries having a written constitution which are founded on the concept of limited government. Judicial review in this case means that Courts of law have the power of testing the validity of legislative as well as other governmental action with reference to the provisions of the constitution. The doctrine of judicial review has been originated and developed by the American Supreme Court, although there is no express provision in the American Constitution for the judicial review. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court made it clear that it had the power of judicial review. Chief Justice George Marshall said," Certainly all those who have framed the written Constitution contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nations, and consequently, the theory of every such Government must be that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution is void". There is supremacy of Constitution in U.S.A. and, therefore, in case of conflict between the Constitution and the Acts passed by the legislature, the Courts follow the Constitution and declare the acts to be unconstitutional and, therefore, void. The Courts declare void the acts of the legislature and the executive, if they are found in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.